What I thought then, what I believe now
Just as my palate has evolved these last several years, so have my beliefs about wine changed with the passage of time.
I was reminded of this after reading a few posts published when this blog launched three years ago. Looking back on these commentaries, I was a bit surprised with my naivete on some subjects and over-generalizations on others.
Here are two posts that convey what I thought back then, but no longer believe now:
I entered the blogosphere thinking those writers only publishing positive reviews were biased in that they were attempting to maintain good standing with the trade. By not covering the negative, I thought these writers were essentially trying to preserve perks that came with the job such as free samples, private tastings, and event invitations.
While there may be some who practice this approach for self-serving reasons, it was clearly an over-generalized statement on my part to suggest that anyone writing solely about the positive was biased. Over the last three years, I have covered the good and the bad on this blog, in hopes of sharing my experiences in a manner that might help consumers make more informed decisions about the wines they buy, the wineries the visit, or the events they attend.
As the unpublished wine reviews, winery profiles, and other topics pile up, it is convenient to prioritize positive experiences over investing the time needed to write negative posts. I now understand why many writers, professional and blogger alike, make a conscious decision to only cover the positive. I am starting to lean toward only covering favorable aspects of my wine experiences, as there is just too much to write about and not enough time to do it.
Am I trying to gain favor with the trade or preserve certain perks by not covering the negative? Absolutely not. Rather, I am merely trying to keep up with it all without becoming overwhelmed or quitting this pursuit entirely. Quite frankly, considering the time and energy blogging requires (let alone that demanded of those covering wine for a living), I would rather it be focused on positive topics than negative ones.
I once thought wine could be evaluated on a truly objective basis, that beyond identifying a technical fault, there remained an unbiased way to judge a wine's quality. To ensure a high level of rigor, I believed that one must taste wine blind, otherwise there is the risk of allowing knowledge of a producer to skew one's assessment of quality.
While I get the reasons for blind tasting when trying to rate a wine, I now understand the cost of such an approach. That cost is turning a blind eye toward how the wine was made and why the winemaker chose that method. I believe wine deserves context, otherwise it's just another alcoholic beverage, one that easily gets reduced to a 100 point scale.
In her book, "The Battle for Wine and Love: or How I Saved the World from Parkerization", Alice Feiring states:
"As a critic Parker focuses on wine tasting and scoring. His criteria, it seems, are power, concentration, and jam. He quantifies. As a writer, I focus on the way a wine is made and why the wines I like taste the way they do. I focus on the story. I qualify."
I favor the latter approach when it comes to reviewing bottles opened at my table. I want to know where the wine was made, who made it and how it was crafted. If I were to relegate my evaluation of wine to merely a score, then maybe there is merit in tasting blind. However, that approach is not for me, neither is it a practice that I rely on now to influence my choice in the wines I try or buy.
One More Thought
Fortunately, the more I have blogged, read, commented, read, and blogged again these last three years, the more I have discovered and learned. Clearly, my intellect needs as much exercise as my palate to help expand my understanding of wine.
In the years ahead, I would not be surprised to return to this topic and call out more posts that were based on thoughts that I no longer believe.
Comments
As a new blogger myself I really enjoyed this write up of thoughts that have changed as you've blogged more.
Regarding the "code" I too have struggled with how or whether to write negative blogs. When I started I pretty much told myself I'd stick to those experiences that are positive for the same reason, I'd much rather focus on the positive for something I'm doing for my own enjoyment. That doesn't mean I'll never write a negative blog and for that reason (and others) I've chosen to stay completely unattached to any particular winery through advertising or accepting free anything, samples, bottles of wine, or even access to wineries/winemakers time except what they give to me as someone walking in the tasting room door.
On the bias thing, I've concluded it's impossible to remove bias when the subject matter is so subjective. I just like knowing what someones bias are when reading what they write so I can judge how to weigh it or to adjust for known bias. On the rating scale I fully agree that reducing a wine to a mere number discounts the context that is so important to all of us. To you the context I believe matters in different ways than it does to me, but we both would rob ourselves of the reasons we enjoy wine if every tasting were done in a vacuum with a blind fold.
Great Blog, Thad.
Posted by: Chris | May 6, 2010 04:27 AM
You imply that tasting a wine blind somehow strips the wine of the context under which it is made. Instead you focus on the where, who and why of the wine.
If your analysis isn't about the wine, but the context under which it was presumably made then the real value of your commentary is based your understanding of the where, who and how.
This leaves me with two questions.
First; How far beyond marketing materials and websites do you go to learn the where, who and why of a wine?
Second; Is your knowledge and experience enough to fully grasp the implications of where, who and how as it relates to a specific wine?
It seems to me that to provide commentary on a wine based on things other than the wine itself is a bit dangerous. It seems to me that the approach you are taking is less about relying on something you know; your impressions of a wine, and perhaps more on something you may not know; how the wine was really grown and made and how those actions impact the wine.
Though I respect the notion of wine in context I question conclusions that are based on anything other than first hand experience and hard fought knowledge. At least with the straightforward analysis of the blind tasting format, the tasters credibility cannot be questioned; it is simply their opinion.
Posted by: Jerry D. Murray | May 11, 2010 08:27 AM
Jerry, thanks for your comment.
You're making a big leap with the assertion that my analysis isn't about the wine, but merely the where, who, and how. Let me be clear: it's both.
When I buy wine and open a bottle at my table, I don't do it blind. I enjoy the context a label affords or a previous experience lends to my enjoyment or disappointment of what's inside.
Sorry, but the notion of serving a bottle in a brown bag is not my preference in evaluating a wine, nor is it a practice I would impose on those who join me at my dinner table.
Finally, if you really "question conclusions that are based on anything other than first hand experience and hard fought knowledge", then you're going to be regularly disappointed by me and other consumers who assess a wine based on what's merely outside and inside the bottle in which it is delivered.
Sincerely,
Thad
Posted by: Thad W. | May 11, 2010 07:24 PM
After reading your comment I decided to take a closer look at what you are doing on the blog. After some thought I owe you an apology. From what I can tell you are not making the kind of inferences that I am finding common among wine 'reviewers', that I described as "dangerous".
Your comments are very much about the wine and how YOU enjoy them. Nice work.
One thing more dangerous than the kind of writing I was describing in my post is that where someone shoots their mouth off without fully understanding the situation. I am guilty as charged!
Keep up the work!
Posted by: Jerry D. Murray | May 13, 2010 08:53 AM
Dear Thad,
As someone who references your blog from time to time (and I thank you for referencing mine), I am mildly disappointed in this posting.
These days, there is a lot less wine that is truely "bad' (which is to say virtually undrinkable) than there was 40 or so years ago when I first started drinking wine. That's definitely a plus. But winemakers and retailers still have a tendency to overvalue the wine they make and sell. Descriptions remain loaded with hype and hyperbole.
Moreover, there is still the question of whether a particular wine is worth the price. Can a consumer experience essentially the same pleasure for less money -- in some cases a lot less money? In many cases, consumers are paying a premium for a "name" and some winemakers put a high price on their wine on the view that if it costs a lot, consumers will think it must be better. Unfortunately, various surveys suggest this is in fact the case.
As someone who regularly drinks a lot of wine and thinks a lot about it, you are in a very good position make judgements on whether a particular wine is worth the price. Remember that the vast majority of wine consumers try to pay $10 a bottle or less. If they spend $15 on a bottle of wine, it is a big deal.
You don't have to write negative reviews simply to prove your independence, but if people like you aren't willing to call a spade a spade, who is?
If you drink a bottle of wine that is not as good as similar wines in the same price range, why not say so? Why be a Pollyanna? I don't get it. Don't we have enough of those in the world of wine already?
Best regards,
Skip Martin
Posted by: Fowler W. Martin | May 23, 2010 07:58 PM
Hey Skip,
I don't think my coverage of negative experiences will stop entirely, rather the frequency of these will most likely decrease over time. As mentioned above, time is clearly one factor, but also my interest in covering a broad section of wine is waning.
If not evident already, I am smitten with Oregon pinot noir and chardonnay, therefore intend to go much deeper here in the months ahead. Along the way, I plan to concentrate more on Oregon and Washington rieslings. The prospect of opening a Pac NW cab, syrah, merlot, sauv blanc, zin, or sangiovese for the sake of diversifying my coverage no longer appeals to me. And frankly, these wines frequently fall short in terms of pleasing my subjective palate.
While you can count an occasional negative review here or there, my hope is that through more selective wine purchases, my coverage will inevitably become more positive in the process. Time will tell whether this holds true or not.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here.
Posted by: Thad W. | June 6, 2010 06:46 PM